I'm being straight up and honest, I think atheist are the cream of da crop in a world of theist. I say this because I know one thing about all atheist, they can figure out B.S. That's why I'm asking this pointed question, do you think this is racist?
We're not dopes here. We know that all humans today can be traced back to our origins in Africa. That doesn't mean that Africans went to China and gave them their culture. The migration that populated China happened wayyyy back in prehistory. As early man traveled, his general appearance evolved along the way. So, if all you're asserting is that everyone has ancestors in Africa, any intelligent person knows that already. So, what else are you asserting?
but they didn't have any trace of homo erectus..so it must have been grimaldi man or what you call homo sapien, sapien..no you aren't dopes, but you are European educated..
and again there was a migration in the north of the Euro phenotype...As with everyplace on the planet (with the exception of Australia and some Pacific Islands which would be late history clash), there was a clash of cultures and the most violent prevailed..
According to Wikipedia, Jin Li "could not find any evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis of independent origin in China" in the 1998 study which used genetic markers called microsatellites to compare Chinese populations. He stated that while his research does not necessarily rule out independent origin, the burden of proof has been shifted to those who believe in independent origin. The findings contrast with the hypothesis that the Peking Man was the ancestor of Chinese people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you misunderstand the Professor, who actually seems to have proved the opposite of what you are asserting.
you are wrong..listen to the video again..
The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) also known as the Indian lion, Persian lion and Eurasian lion, is a subspecies of lion. The only place in the wild where this species is found is in the Gir Forest of Gujarat, India. In 2010, the Gujarat government reported that 411 Asiatic lions were sighted in the Gir forest; a rise of 52 over the last census of 2005.
Also from Wikipedia:
The lion is not indigenous to China however Asiatic lions were found in neighboring India as well as western Tibet. These Asiatic lions found in Indian temples are the model for those depicted in Chinese art. It is thought that Buddhist priests, or possibly traders, brought descriptions to China of sculpted lions guarding the entry to temples. Chinese sculptors then used the description to model "Fo-Lions" ("Fo" 佛 being Chinese for Buddha) temple statues after native dogs (possibly the Tibetan Mastiff) by adding a shaggy mane. Depictions of these "Fo-lions" have been found in Chinese religious art as early as 208 BC.
I don't think it's far-fetched to think rich or powerful Chinese bought the occasional lion. That Chinese depictions of lions make them look like Rottweilers with manes may reveal that lions were regarded more in terms of their symbology than their actual appearance.
As for the Olmec statues or any others far afield of Africa which seem to resemble Africans, most early cultures with the exception of the Greeks, tended to present stylized representations. Egyptian art is a good example as are cave drawings and animal depictions of the Norse peoples. In Western Europe (west of Greece), realism didn't really catch on until the Renaissance.
point the lion is NOT indigenous to China...
"it is thought" (again this is how Europeans get away with their racism) they were brought by traders etc...but African centered scholars can't think..lol
You really need to read and research more about the Olmecs and their similarities to older African cultures...Please don't get me started with "egypt"..I told you to look in the face of the so called Sphnix.(or was that another caracature?).They sure loved to carve African faces all over the world..Remember there was a world before the white man..it was B.C..
it will all come out even the racist will have to admit their scholarship was bias and "racially" motivated...
I'm sure a lot of Europans will say any Black that challenged their "academic wisdom" is not much of anything, more less a scholar...we have to make do with what we got to correct the lies..
Congratulations! Clearly you've given yourself mental tools sufficient to ignore any truth that isn't consonant with what you want to believe. There's no difference between that and being a religious zealot. You're appearing to be a racial zealot, permanently immune to the truth.
The reason I trust the mainstream scholars more than your scholars is that our scholars are ready to live with the truth, even if it's an unpopular truth. If you compare what was conventionally taught about non-white peoples 100 or 200 years ago with today, you'll find a lot of admiration for the accomplishments of those cultures and admissions that they had high attainments that in many ways exceeded those of the west. In astronomy, to take one obvious example, where European "science" had to develop to a very high plane before we could even see how far advanced the Mexicans, Babylonians, and Pacific islanders, among others, were.
I think you greatly overestimate how much cultural resistance there would be to granting the ideas you are promoting. While there may be some uneducated yahoos who have a strong emotional commitment to white European superiority, among the better educated, it's simply the lack of convincing evidence that has us resisting.
The reason I trust the mainstream scholars more than your scholars is that our scholars are ready to live with the truth, even if it's an unpopular truth.-unseen
Yeah your history bears this out (sic)...the only way your scholars will admit the truth is they have nowhere else to intellectually run.. enough of this..
do you realize that less than 50 years ago, they taught black inferiority OPENLY in schools. (today it's covert like your comments)..They had to stop because with new evidence they couldn't justify their racism..It was like pulling teeth to get them to "adjust." like I said enough..you have told me all I need to know about you.
Well, I guess we'll have to carry on without you, then,
Yeah your history bears this out (sic)...the only way your scholars will admit the truth is they have nowhere else to intellectually run
That's how all science works, Shabaka. A new notion overtakes the old notion by beating it in the war of ideas with evidence and proof.
do you realize that less than 50 years ago, they taught black inferiority OPENLY in schools.
Hey, buddy, I'm 65. I was in high school 50 years ago (with black kids, for I was in a mixed area) and nobody was teaching black inferiority in any school I went to, and if they did the black parents would have forced the school to fire them. In fact, of all the teachers I had, if any of them expressed any political views at all, they were very sympathetic to blacks on race issues.
So, what school or schools are you talking about? Some small town school in the back woods of the deep south? Maybe 100 or more like it 150 years ago was sh*t like that being taught. I'm thinking this might be another instance of your ability to believe crackpot ideas based on hearsay, urban legend, or crackpot "scholars."
Science works like "all scientist agreed?" then they agree on something else not as subtle, but just as racist.
You know unseen, you are so lost. They were teaching the inferiority of Blacks and you were just thinking it was fair and balanced history. And BTW, it shows even today. What did you learn about Africans 50 years ago except they were slaves and the white man named Lincoln freed them?
I didn't grow up in the south per se..In fact I grew up in the capital of the Union..
I can see the problem here. You too damn old..
Apparently we white folks even have masters controlling our minds. Who are they? and what color are they?